Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the scoping behavior of year/month filtering, but does not disclose return format, default behavior when no parameters are provided, or any grouping details.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single efficient sentence: it states the operation and then the optional scoping parameters. Every word contributes; there is no repetition or filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only list tool the description is mostly adequate, but with no output schema it does not mention what the returned data looks like or how the optional year/month parameters affect results when combined or absent. It is usable but leaves an agent to infer expected response structure.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does say year and/or month are used for 'escopo' (scope), giving basic semantics, but it omits expected formats, ranges, or behavior when both are omitted. This is partial compensation only.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a clear verb and resource: 'Lista limites de gastos por categoria' (lists spending limits by category). This distinguishes it from budget mutation tools like create/update/delete_budget, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The only usage guidance is 'Passe year e/ou month para escopo,' which explains optional parameters but not when to choose this tool over siblings such as organizze_get_budget_summary or organizze_clone_budgets. There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.